C4TH  CONGRESS  1  CWATF  (DOCUMENT 

Mission 


THE  STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND 
REFERENDUM 


AN  ARTICLE 

ON 

THE  PRESENT  STATUS  OF  THE  STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE 

AND  REFERENDUM  STATUTES,  WHAT  THEY 

ARE,  WHERE  THEY  ARE  IN  USE, 

AND  HOW  THEY  WORK 


By 

JUDSON  KING 

EXECUTIVE  SECRETARY.  THE  NATIONAL 
POPULAR  GOVERNMENT  LEAGUE 


PRESENTED  BY  MR.  OWEN 
MARCH  I,    1917.— Ordered  to  be  printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1917 


SENATE  RESOLUTION  NO.  384. 

(Reported  by  Mr.  Chilton.) 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

March  2,  1917. 

Resolved,  That  the  manuscript  submitted  by  the  Senator  from 
Oklahoma  (Mr.  Owen),  on  March  first,  nineteen  hundred  and  seven- 
teen, entitled  "The  Present  Status  of  the  State- Wide  Initiative  and 
Referendum,"  by  Judson  King,  executive  secretary,  the  National 
Popular  Government  League,  be  printed  as  a  Senate  Document. 
Attest: 

JAMES  M.  BAKEH, 

Secretary. 


THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM:  WHAT  THEY  ARE,  WHERE 
THEY  ARE  IN  USE,  HOW  THEY  WORK. 


WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM? 

The  initiative  and  referendum,  are  well-tried  and  orderly  means  of 
enabling  the  voters  to  control  the  acts  of  their  legislators  and  secure 
the  legislation  demanded  by  a  majority  of  the  people. 

DEFINE    THE    INITIATIVE. 

The  initiative  is  a  method  by  which  a  bill  persistently  blocked  in 
the  legislature  but  which  the  people  desire,  may,  by  means  of  a  peti- 
tion, be  brought  to  a  direct  vote  at  a  regular  State  election  and 
enacted  into  a  law  if  the  majority  votes  "Yes." 

For  example:  The  people  of  Maine  for  years  demanded  a  direct 
primary  law.  The  legislature  refused  to  pass  it.  An  initiative 
petition,  signed  by  12,000  voters,  was  filed.  The  law  was  submitted 
at  the  general  election  of  1911,  and  adopted  by  a  vote  of  65,810  to 
21,774.  It  has  since  been  in  operation. 

DEFINE    THE    REFERENDUM. 

The  referendum  is  a  method  by  which  any  objectionable  law 
passed  by  a  legislature  and  signed  by  the  governor  may,  by  petition 
of  the  people,  be  referred  to  the  voters  at  the  ensuing  general  elec- 
tion, and  vetoed  by  them  if  the  majority  votes  "No." 

For  example:  The  Legislature  of  Washington,  in  1915,  enacted  a 
law  seriously  crippling  the  publicly  owned  port  of  Seattle.  This 
port  had  been  built  at  an  expense  to  the  people  of  nearly  $7,000,000. 
It  has  a  fine  public  grain  elevator,  a  big  refrigerator  for  fruit,  public 
warehouses,  docks,  piers,  markets,  etc.  It  was  efficient  and  much 
cheaper  than  the  private  ports.  The  act  was  recognized  instantly 
as  the  first  step  of  the  big  corporation  interests  to  put  the  public 
port  out  of  .business. 

The  following  is  from  Bulletin  No.  9  issued  by  the  Port  of  Seattle 
Commission : 

When  the  act  was  pending  the  people  protested  vehemently  against  the  passage  of 
so  vicious  a  bill.  Mass  meetings  were  held  in  public  halls.  Commercial  bodies,  civic 
organizations,  women's  clubs,  and  improvement  societies  throughout  the  city  and 
district  transmitted  resolutions  and  telegrams  demanding  the  defeat  of  the  measure. 
Representatives  of  such  organizations  went  to  Olympia  at  their  own  expense  and 
personally  appealed  to  members  against  legislation  so  needless,  so  undemocratic; 
reactionary,  and  unsound.  Notwithstanding  the  aroused  public  sentiment,  the  two 
larger  newspapers  in  Seattle  (particularly  the  Post-Intelligencer)  demanded  the  emas- 
culation of  the  port  commission.  Under  the  whip  of  the  party  machine  the  legislature 

3 


*  r*   A   A 


4  STATE- WIDE   INITIATIVE   AND   REFERENDUM. 

adopted  word  for  -,vord  (lie  bill  of  the  special  interests  and  rejected  all  other  amend- 
ments, suggestions,  and  presentation  of  facts. 

Within  90  days  a  petition  signed  by  over  G  per  cent  of  the  voters  of 
Washington  was  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state,  the  law  suspended, 
and  at  the  election  of  January  7,  1916,  the  voters  rejected  the  act  of 
the  legislature  by  the  overwhelming  vote  of  195,253  against  to  45,264 
for.  So  this  public  port,  the  "ocean  gateway  of  the  Northwest,"  was 
saved,  and  the  business  men  of  Seattle,  who  had  done  practically 
nothing  to  secure  the  initiative  and  referendum  for  Washington, 
awoke  to  its  value  as  a  safeguard  for  legitimate  business  as  well  as 
for  the  general  public. 

DO  THE    INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  "ABOLISH  THE  LEGISLATURE"? 

Not  at  all.  The  claim  that  they  do  or  are  so  intended  is  a  false 
charge,  made  by  its  opponents  to  deceive  and  prejudice  the  people. 
Legislatures  proceed  exactly  as  at  present  and  enact  the  vast  bulK  of 
legislation.  No  law  referred  by  the  initiative  or  referendum  goes  on 
the  ballot  except  by  special  petition. 

ARE     THE     INITIATIVE     AND     REFERENDUM      "NEW"      AND     "  REVOLU- 
TIONARY"? 

No.  From  the  beginning  of  our  Government  the  American  people 
have  retained  the  right  to  control  certain  things  by  direct  vote,  such 
as  State  constitutions  or  amendments  thereto,  bond  issues,  city 
charters,  the  location  of  State  and  county  seats  of  government, 
boundary  lines,  etc.*  The  initiative  and  referendum  simply  extends 
these  powers  by  enabling  the  people  to  compel  a  vote  on  any  question 
they  desire  to  vote  upon. 

They  are  modern  methods  made  necessary  by  changed  modern 
conditions,  but  they  are  based  directly  upon  the  old  American  doc- 
trine of  the  people's  right  to  self-government.  The  Massachusetts 
constitution  of  1780,  the  first  constitution  in  the  world  to  be  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  the  people,  contains  in  its  famous  Bill  of  Rights  this 
declaration : 

VII.  Government  is  constituted  for  the  common  good;  for  the  protection,  safety, 
prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people;  and  not  for  the  profit,  honor  or  private  interest 
of  any  one  man,  family  or  class  of  men:  Therefore,  the  people  alone  have  an  incon- 
testable, inalienable,  and  indefeasible  right  to  institute  government;  and  to  reform, 
alter  or  totally  change  the  same,  uhen  their  protection,  safety,  prosperity  or  happiness 
require  it. 

The  equally  famous  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  of  1776  has  almost  the 
same  language,  and  every  State  constitution  since  adopted  contains 
similar  declarations  and  in  similar  language. 

BY  WHAT  PROCESS  ARE  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  ESTABLISHED  ? 

It  is  necessary  to  change  the  State  constitution  by  amending  the 
clause  by  which  the  people  grant  legislative  power  to  the  legislatures 
so  as  to  reserve  legislative  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people  by  the 
initiative  and  referendum. 


STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM.  5 

WHAT    NEED    IS    THERE    OF    THE     INITIATIVE    AND     REFERENDUM     IN 

AMERICAN    STATES? 

Says  President  Woodrow  Wilson: 

The  methods  of  our  legislatures  make  the  operations  of  political  machines  easy,  for 
very  little  of  our  legislation  is  formed  and  effected  by  open  debate  upon  the  floor. 
Almost  all  of  it  is  framed  in  lawyer's  offices,  discussed  in  committee  rooms,  and  passed 
without  debate.  Bills  that  the  machine  and  its  backers  do  not  desire  are  smothered 
in  committee;  measures  whicfi  they  do  desire  are  brought  out  and  hurried  through 
their  passage.  It  happens  again  and  again  that  great  groups  of  such  bills  are  rushed 
through  in  Hie  hurried  hours  that  mark  the  close  of  the  legislative  sessions,  when 
everyone's  vigilance  is  weakened  by  fatigue  and  when  it  is  possible  to  do  secret  things. 

When  we  stand  in  the  presence  of  these  things  and  see  how  complete  and  sinister 
their  operation  has  been,  we  cry  out  with  no  little  truth  that  we  no  longer  have  repre- 
sentative government. 

If  we  felt  that  we  had  genuine  representative  government  in  our  State  legislatures, 
no  one  would  propose  the  initiative  and  referendum  in  America.'  They  are  being  pro- 
posed now  as  a  means  of  bringing  our  representatives  back  to  the  consciousness  that 
what  they  are  bound  in  duty  and  in  mere  policy  to  do  is  to  represent  the  sovereign 
people  whom  they  profess  to  serve,  and  not  the  private  interests  which  creep  into  their 
councils  by  way  of  machine  orders  and  committee  conferences. 

It  must  be  remembered  by  every  candid  man  who  discusses  these  matters  that  we 
are  contrasting  the  operation  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  not  with  the  repre- 
sentative government  which  we  have  in  theory,  but  with  the  actual  state  of  affairs. 
(Address  at  Kansas  City,  May  5,  1911.) 

v  WHO  FAVOR  AND  WHO  OPPOSE  THEM? 

The  men  and  women  of  every  political  faith  who  believe  in  the 
American  doctrines  of  majority  rule  and  government  by  the  people 
arc  favorable.  There  have  been  planks  favoring  the  initiative  and 
referendum  in  the  platforms  of  all  political  parties  at  various  times 
and  places.  Organizations  of  the  producing  classes  such  as  farmer's 
unions,  granges,  labor  organizations,  and  reform  leagues  are  for  them. 
They  arc  strenuously  opposed  by  all  the  big  trusts  and  corporations, 
the  reactionary  politicians  of  all  parties,  nearly  all  the  corporation 
lawyers,  and  every  corrupt  political  boss  in  the  United  States.  There 
are  a  few  honest  conservatives  who  doubt  its  wisdom  and  oppose  it 
for  unselfish  reasons.  This  is  the  line-up. 

HOW    MANY    STATES    HAVE    ADOPTED    THEM? 

The  following  table  shows  that  a  total  of  21  States  have  adopted 
constitutional  amendments  which  grant  these  powers  in  some  form. 
A  few  provisions  arc  utterly  worthless;  the  majority  of  them  are 
defective,  but  a  few  States  have  complete  and  adequate  amendments 
where  a  fair  try-out  of  the  system  has  been  had. 


6 


STATE-WIDE   INITIATIVE   AND  REFERENDUM. 


TABLE  No.  1.- — Progress  and  status  of  the  Stale-wide  initiative  and  referendum. 
[Total  21  States,  February,  1917.] 


Date 
of 
adop- 
tion. 

State. 

Popular  vote  on 
amendment. 

Character  of 
amendment. 

For. 

.       23,816 
19.219 
U2,024 
4,393 
36,374 
180,  383 
51,991 
177,615 
91,383 
89,  141 
12,534 
3lj  742 
138,  181 
189,  200 
110,110 
43,658 
312,592 
9,956 
219,388 
48,  783 
19,  118 
51,880 

Against. 

1898 
1900 
1902 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1908 
1910 
1910 
1911 
1911 
1911 
1912 
1912 
1912 
1912 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1914 
1915 

South  Dakota 

16,  483 
7,786 
5,688 
792 
6,616 
73,  059 
23,  712 
147,290 
39,680 
28,698 
3,920 
13,399 
44,850 
15,315 
43,905 
13,  490 
231,312 
1,027 
152,  038 
19,964 
8,718 
24,  659 

Poor. 
Worthless. 
Good. 
Defective. 
Poor. 
Defective. 
Do. 
Fair. 
Poor. 
Fair. 
Excellent. 
Worthless. 
Excellent. 
Defective. 
Poor. 
Worthless. 
Fair. 
Good. 
Fair. 
Bad. 
Excellent. 
Good. 

Utah1 

Oregon            

Nevada 

Montana  

Oklahoma 

Maine  

Missouri  

Arkansas 

Arizona                                      

New  Mexico  (referendum  only) 

California 

Nebraska 

Idaho1                    .  ..      .               

Ohio  

Nevada  (adds  initiative)  

Michigan 

North  Dakota  

Mississippi                               

Maryland  (referendum  only) 

Total 

1,923,451  1        932,401, 

1  Amendment  not  self-executing.    The  legislature  has  refused  to  pass  an  enabling  act.    Hence  the  people 
have  never  been  permitted  to  use  it 

Note  this: 

Total  vote  for  President,  191G 18,  531,  778 

Total  vote  in  20  States  where  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  in  active 
operation 6, 400, 177 

One-third  of  the  voters  of  the  United  States  have  the  initiative  and 
referendum  in  State  affairs. 


IS  IT  TRUE  THAT  THERE  IS  A  REACTION  AGAINST  THE  INITIATIVE  AND 
REFERENDUM    IN    THE    COUNTRY? 

No.  The  charge  is  without  foundation  in  fact.  There  has  been  a 
let-up  the  world  around  in  every  reform  movement  since  the  beginning 
of  the  war  in  Europe.  The  people  arc  simply  marking  tune.  Yet 
three  States  have  adopted  the  initiative  and  referendum  since  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  and  it  is  a  live  political  issue  in  13  other  States 
at  present  (February,  1917).  There  is  no  Question  among  well- 
informed,  thinking  men  but  that  this  war  will  be  followed  by  the 
most  tremendous  forward  strides  toward  political  and  economic 
democracy  the  world  has  known. 

HOW  HAVE  THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM  WORKED  IN  THE  STATES 
WHERE    THEY   HAVE    BEEN    USED? 

Progressives-  say  they  work  well;  reactionaries  say  they  work 
badly.  The  opinion  of  the  great  masses  of  the  voters  can  be  known 
from  election  returns. 

In  1910  the  Oregon  Legislature  proposed  a  convention  to  revise 
the  State  constitution.  The  people  recognized  in  it  an  attempt  to 
destroy  the  effectiveness  of  the  initiative  and  referendum,  and  rejected 


STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM.  7 

the  proposition  by  a  vote  of  23,143  for  to  59,974  against.  This  was 
an  indirect  test  of  public  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  the  initiative  and 
referendum . 

In  1915  the  Legislature  of  Washington  passed  a  law  which  made 
the  initiative  arid  referendum  unworkable.  A  referendum  petition 
was  filed,  and  the  law  rejected  in  1916  by  a  vote  of  62,117  for  to 
196,363  against.  Test  votes  of  like  character  in  other  States  show 
the  same  results. 

It  is  significant,  that  no  political  party  or  politician  in  the  initiative 
and  referendum  States  lias  ever  advocated  its  abolition;  and  no 
Slate  which  lias  adopted  it  has  ever  abolished  it. 

The  feeling  of  the  great  majority  everywhere  is  aptly  expressed  by 
Mr.  William  Spence,  master  of  the 'State  Grange  of  Oregon,  as  follows: 

The  common  people  of  Oregon  would  not  give  up  the  initiative  and  referendum. 
No  one  fights  it  here  but  the  corporations  and  grafting  politicians  it  has  put  out  of  a  job. 

Mr.  C.  B.  Kegley,  master  of  the  Washington  State  Grange,  a  farm 
leader  of  national  reputation,  says: 

In  the  last  two  elections  the  people  of  Washington  have  tried  out  the  initiative  and 
referendum  and  proved  their  worth.  You  may  as  well  talk  of  changing  this  State  into 
a  monarchy  as  to  expect  the  people  to  return  to  the  old  system.  The  reason  is  evident. 
Just  after  the  election  of  1916  the  leading  corporation  lobyist  of  our  State  said  to  me: 
UI  can  easily  beat  you  fellows  in  the  legislature  but  when  you  go  to  the  people  and  get 
us  into  the  open  you  have  no  trouble  in  winning  your  case.  I  have  had  about  as  much 
as  I  want  of  your  kind  of  politics." 

The  New  Republic  Magazine  of  New  York  investigated  the  direct 
legislation  results  of  the  1914  election,  in  which  a  total  of  110  initiative 
and  referendum  questions  were  voted  upon  in  14  States.  The  esti- 
mate was  guarded  and  conservative.  In  his  conclusion  the  author, 
Mr.  Robert  E.  Gushing,  says: 

The  popular  voting  on  measures  last  November  can  not  be  called  unintelligent.  A 
scanning  of  the  vote  on  separate  measures  discloses  an  almost  total  absence  of  that 
tendency  to  treat  all  propositions  alike,  which  betrays  an  indifferent  ignorance.  The 
more  exacting  the  task  imposed  upon  the  people  the  more  painstakingly  and  dis- 
creetly did  they  perform  it  '  *.  Whether  the  voter's  judgment  was  good  or  bad, 
he  justified  the  referendum  ballot  by  using  it  to  give  himself  precisely  what  he 
wanted. 

Editorially  the  New  Republic  said,  in  connection  with  this  report: 

The  conclusive  argument  in  favor  of  direct  government  is  consequently  educa- 
tional '•  *.  A  democracy  is  not  educated  up  to  the  level  of  its  responsibilities  by 
decisions  made  by  its  representatives  or  by  principles  of  "legal  morals''  established 
by  its  forbears,  or  by  the  power  of  vetoing  unjust  ligislation  conferred  on  judges  *  *  *. 
If  a  political  democracy  is  to  learn  its  business  it  must  participate  directly  in  the  trans- 
action of  its  business. 

ADVANTAGES    OF   THE    INITIATIVE    AND   REFERENDUM. 

First.  It  educates  and  vitalizes  citizenship.  Says  the  editor  of  the 
Oregon  State  Journal  (August,  1912): 

It  keeps  the  average  citizen  in  touch  with  current  legislation.  It  brings  home  the 
duty  and  responsibility  of  helping  make  laws.  It  awakens  a  realization  of  factorship 
in  State  concerns  *  *  *.  We  are  not  completely  fit,  no  doubt,  but  the  use  of  this 
privilege  and  power  will  make  the  people  more  fit,  constantly  and  even  rapidly. 


8  STATE-WIDE   INITIATIVE   AND  BEFERENDUM. 

Says  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes,  of  Los  Angeles,  one  of  California's 
greatest  citizens : 

From  an  educational  standpoint  the  initiative  and  referendum  have  been  worth 
their  cost  a  thousandfold.  They  have  acted  as  a  sort  of  great  popular  university  to 
stimulate  the  intellectual  faculties  of  the  people.  They  have  made  the  individual 
less  selfish,  more  thoughtful  of  the  welfare  of  others;  they  have  given  him  a  new  feeling 
of  social  solidarity.  (Address,  1917.) 

Second.  Legislation  is  kept  abreast  of  the  times.  Needed  reforms 
are  not  delayed  for  many  years  since  they  can  be  enacted  through  the 
initiative.  Every  initiative  and  referendum  State  shows  reforms  of 
great  practical  value,  voted  by  the  people  over  the  heads  of  the 
politicians. 

Third.  Legislatures  become  much  more  responsive  to  the  will  of 
the  people  and  increasingly  so  as  time  goes  on.  The__niere  presence 
of  the  initiative  and  referendum  forces  much  good  legislation  upon 
which  thepeople  do  not  vote  at  all. 

Judge  William  R.  King,  former  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Oregon,  at  present  chief  counsel  for  the  United  States 
Reclamation  Service,  writes: 

In  my  opinion  the  initiative  and  referendum  has  been  instrumental  in  giving  the 
people  of  this  State  (Oregon)  more  wise  and  progressive  legislation  than  they  would 
have  secured  under  the  representative  system  only. 

The  mere  fact  that  the  people  have  within  their  power  the  right  to  initiate  measures 
or  refer  them  by  referendum  has  served  as  a  great  check  upon  bad  legislation  in  the 
legislative  assembly,  and,  at  the  same  time,  it  has  furnished  a  motive  for  better  legis- 
lation, to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  people  have  initiated  a  number  of  reforms 
by  direct  vote  which  were  defeated  by  the  legislature. 

Fourth.  The  referendum  especially  is  the  greatest  foe  to  bribery 
known.  Corporations  hesitate  to  spend  money  to  secure  laws  which 
the  people  can  easily  kill  by  a  referendum  vote. 

Fifth.  The  initiative  and  referendum  are  especially  valuable  in 
/times  of  great  crises,  when  laws  involving  millions  of  dollars  or  the 
health  and  happiness  of  millions  of  people'  are  at  stake. 

Sixth.  It  promotes  efficiency  in  government. 

Hon.  William  Kent,  former  Congressman  and  now  member  of  the 
Federal  Tariff  Commission,  says: 

,  The  old  constitutional  checks  and  balances  have  but  worked  for  inefficiency.  The 
old  system  has  arrived,  not  at  majority  rule,  but  at  a  nefarious  system  of  rule  by  power- 
ful and  dictatorial  minorities  that  most  of  all  need  money  for  success  and  are  prepared 
to  reciprocate  in  terms  of  special  privilege,  and  so  on  around  and  around  in  an  unending 
circle  of  corruption  and  privilege. 

The  whole  modern  theory  is  that  we  must  shorten  the  ballot  as  much  as  possible, 
provide  a  minimum  of  elective  and  a  maximum  of  appointive  offices,  place  great 
power  and  great  responsibility  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  and  then  control  them  by  direct 
popular  action,  by  means  of  the  initiative,  referendum,  and  recall.  (Address  at 
Harvard  University.) 

Seventh.  Initiated  laws  not  only  avoid  destructive  " jokers "  which 
nullify  their  effectiveness,  but  are  usually  better  prepared  and  more 
carefully  drafted  than  legislative  acts. 


STATE-WIDE   INITIATIVE   AND  REFERENDUM. 

Hon.  Richard  W.  Montague,  a  distinguished  attorney  of  the  Port- 
land bar;  writes: 

My  personal  opinion,  based  upon  an  examination  of  all  the  general  laws  of  Oregon 
in  force  in  1910,  in  pursuance  of  the  duty  of  compiling  the  official  publication  of  the 
statutes,  made  under  public  authority  in  that  year,  is  that  in  all  that  pertains  to  the 
technique  of  draftsmanship,  legislation  passed  under  the  initiative  is  markedly  supe- 
rior-to  the  average  of  the  statutes  passed  by  the  legislature.  .This  superiority  is  not 
inherent,  of  course,  but  results  naturally  from  the  fact  that  these  laws  have  mostly 
been  drafted  by  a  rather  large  committee  of  persons  having  a  lively  interest  in  the  - 
matter  in  hand  and  some  practical  knowledge  of  it,  besides  what  knowledge  they  may 
have  of  the  general  requirements  of  legislation;  and  that  the  framers  were  aware  that 
their  measure  once  launched  must  go  as  it  is,  for  better  or  worse. 

WHAT    OBJECTIONS   ARE    MADE    TO    THE    INITIATIVE    AND 
REFERENDUM  ? 

The  following  arc  the  leading  objections  everywhere  raised  against 
the  adoption  01  the  system  of  " direct  legislation/''  as  the  initiative 
and  referendum  are  collectively  known.  As  far  as  possible,  the  facts 
of  actual  experience  are  given  in  answer. 

First  objection. — This  Nation  was  founded  upon  the  "representative 
principle."  The  initiative  and  referendum  conflict  with  this  prin- 
ciple and  would  change  or  destroy  our  form  of  government. 

Answer.  Senator  Kobert  L.  Owen,  of  Oklahoma,  in  a  speech 
before  the  United  States  Senate,  March  3,  1913,  said: 

This  Republic  was  not  founded  on  any  so-called  "representative  principle/'  The 
representative  is  merely  a  convenience,  a  servant,  an  agency,  subject  of  right  to  the 
direct  control  of  the  people. 

This  Republic  was  founded  on  the  principle  that  the  people  were  sovereign  and  had 
a  right,  if  they  pleased,  to  manage  their  business  directly,  a  God-given  right,  vested 
in  them,  inalienable  and  indefeasible,  directly  to  alter,  amend,  or  abolish  any  law. 
Every  State  constitution  except  one  was  established  by  the  direct  law-making  power 
of  the  people. 

The  option  to  use  the  initiative  and  referendum  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  present 
convenient  system  of  legislating  through  representatives,  but  is  in  harmony  with  that 
system  and  makes  it  more  representative,  not  less  representative. 


Second  objection. — It  would  establish  the  "tyranny  of  the  major- 
ity." The  minority  would  be  unprotected. 

Answer.  This  prediction,  made  by  the  highest  conservative  author- 
ities,  is  an  astonishing  admission  that  wo  do  not  now  have  majority 
rule  in  the  United  States.  And  it  is  a  fact.  Our  whole  system  lends 
itself  to  the  rule  of  the  propertied  minority  over  the  numerical  major- 
ity, and  this  is  exactly  why  the  people  demand  direct  legislative 
power. 

Third  objection. — It  would  result  in  "minority  rule." 
Answer.  The  claim  is  that  only  a  small  number  would  vote  on 
measures,  hence  laws  would  or  might  be  enacted  by  a  minority  of  tho 
voters  of  a  State.  It  must  bo  remembered  that  measures  are  not 
voted  on  at  special  initiative  and  referendum  elections,  but  at  regular 
elections  at  which  State  and  national  officers  are  chosen. 


10 


STATE- WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 


Discarding  prophecy,  t-lio  cold  facts  of  all  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum election  returns  show  that,  compared  with  the  total  vote  for 
candidates,  an  average  of  75.7  per  cent  of  the  voters  have  voted  on 
every  question,  84.6  per  cent  of  the  voters  have  voted  on  the  most 
important  questions,  68.3  per  cent  of  the  voters  have  voted  on  the 
least  important  questions. 

The  following  table  from  which  the  above  figures  are  taken,  covers 
all  the  State-wide  measures  submitted  by  initiative  and  referendum 
petitions  in  the  United  States  to  date.  It  shows  the  interest  the  peo- 
ple have  taken  in  the  350  questions  submitted  in  72  elections  in  14 
States  from  1904  to  1916.  In  several  instances  the  vote  on  measures 
exceeded  the  vote  cast  on  Congressmen,  governor,  or  even  the 
President. 

TABLE  No.  2. — Average  per  cent  of  the  vote  cast  on  measures  submitted  by  initiative  and 
referendum  petitions  as  compared  to  the  total  vole  for  candidates. 


General  election  cf  — 

Number 
•  of  Slates 
iisin^ 
initiative 
and  ref- 
erendum. 

Average 
per  cent 
total  vote 
on  highest 
measures. 

Average 
per  cent 
total  vote 
on  lowest 
measures. 

Average 
per  cent 
total  vote 
on  all 
measures. 

1904                                                                                          -  - 

1 

84 

73 

78 

190C                  

1 

83 

67 

77 

1908                                       

4 

84 

71 

79 

1910 

5 

84 

62 

73 

1912                          

10 

82 

68 

72 

1914 

14 

84 

63 

70 

1916 

14 

91 

74 

82 

84.6 

68.3 

75.7 

WHAT  THIS  TABLE  TROVES. 

Applying  this  table  to  the  presidential  election  of  November  7, 
1916,  we  have  the  following  results  in  the  14  States  which  used  initia- 
tive and  referendum  in  that  election: 

Total  vote  for  President  (or  governor),  14  States 4,  785,  783 

Average  total  on  most  important  measures 4,  355,  062 

Average  total  on  least  important  measures 3,  541,  479 

Average  total  vote  on  all  measures 3,  924,  342 

or,  to  put  it  more  concretely,  out  of  every  man  or  woman  voter  who 
cast  a  ballot  for  president  or  governor 'in  these  14  States,  over  9 
voters  out  of  10  voted  on  the  most  vital  measures;  over  7  voters  out 
of  10  voted  on  the  most  trivial  measures;  over  8  voters  out  of  10 
voted  on  every  question  submitted. 

Nonvoters  are  not  entitled  to  any  legal  or  moral  considerations  as 
affecting  the  result  of  a  vote  upon  a  measure  any  more  than  failure 
to  vote  upon  a  candidate. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  in  his  opinion  on  the  admission  of  West  Vir- 
ginia, wrote: 

It  is  a  universal  practice  in  the  popular  elections  in  all  these  States  to  give  no  legal 
consideration  whatever  to  those  who  do  not  choose  to  vote,  as  against  the  effect  of  the 
votes  of  those  who  do  choose  to  vote.  IJ^nfe  it  is  not  the  qualified  voters,  but  the 
qualified  voters  who  choose  to  vote,  that  constitute  the  political  power  of  the  State. 


STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM.  11 

Fourth  objection. — It  would  weaken  the  responsibility,  dignity,  and 
authority  of  legislative  bodies. 

Answer.  It  has  not  done  so  in  any  American  State  nor  in  Switzer- 
land, where  it  has  been  in  operation  for  over  50  years.  Contrariwise, 
it  strengthens  any  legislator  who  is  trying  to  serve  and  not  govern 
the  people.  Men  who  prate  of  dignity  and  authority  have  the 
European,  not  the  American  conception  of  government.  Americans 
arc  not  supposed  to  elect  masters  to  rule  over  them. 

Fifth  objection. — If  the  people  are  to  make  the  laws,  what  is  the 
use  of  a  legislature  ? 

Answer.  The  initiative  and  referendum  do  not  abolish  the  legis- 
lature or  the  need  for  one.  They  are  called  into  action  only  in 
emergencies,  when  the  legislature  fails  to  accomplish  the  will  of  the 
people,  and  usually  upon  important  questions.  Since  the  initiative 
and  referendum  were  established  in  Oregon  over  98  per  cent  of  the 
laws  have  been  enacted  by  the  legislature.  In  other  States  the 
percentage  is  higher  than  this.  (Hon.  Robert  Grosser,  Congressman 
from  Ohio  and  author  of  the  Ohio  provision  for  the  initiative  and 
referendum.) 

Sixth  objection. — There  would  be  too  many  elections  and  the  cost 
would  bankrupt  the  State. 

Answer.  This  is  usually  a  willful  misrepresentation,  made  to 
deceive  the  people.  Initiative  and  referendum  questions  in  all  States 
are  submitted  at  the  regular  general  elections.  Special  elections,  on 
issues  of  great  moment,  can  be  called  only  by  the  governor  or  State 
legislature,  as  is  provided  in  the  initiative  and  referendum  amend- 
ment. Only  one  such  election  has  yet  been  called  in  all  the  20  States 
having  the  initiative  and  referendum.  The  cost  of  printing  and 
counting  of  ballots  is  but  a  slight  addition  to  the  cost  of  a  general 
election.  The  people  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  States  are  not 
complaining  about  the  expense. 

Seventh  objection. — There  would  be  too  many  questions  on  the 
ballot  and  the  people  would  become  confused. 

Answer.  In  three  elections,  due  largely  to  the  failure  of  the  legis- 
lature to  carry  out  the  will  of  the  people,  a  relatively  large  number  of 
questions  have  been  submitted  in  Oregon  through  the  initiative  and 
referendum.  Political  experts  have  been  astonished  at  the  ease  and 
intelligence  with  which  the  voters  disposed  of  these  questions.  The 
citizens  of  Oregon  are  not  worried,  but  there  seems  to  be  great  alarm 
among  eastern  newspaper  editors  lest  the  minds  of  our  people  be 
overstrained.  I  fear  that  the  fact  that  we  are  voting  on  vital  issues, 
which  certain  people  would  not  like  to  see  raised,  is  what  troubles 
some.  The  people  of  Oregon  consider  that  they  are  as  capable  of 
deciding  on  30  measures  with  four  months  preparation  and  more,  as 
the  legislature  is  on  824  measures  in  40  days.  (William  S.  U'Ren, 
father  of  the  "Oregon  system.") 

Critics  now  use  as  a  " horrible  example"  the  California  election  of 
1914,  at  which  48  questions  were  on  the  ballot.  They  forgot  to  men- 
tion the  fact  that  27  of  these  were  constitutional  amendments  sub- 
mitted by  the  State  legislature  and  21  by  the  people. 


12 


STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  BEFERENDUM. 


In  72  elections  there  have  been  but  four  in  which  over  20  questions 
have  been  submitted  by  petition. 

But  men  who  strenuously  oppose  the  needed  "short  ballot" 
reform  and  exhibit  no  alarm  over  a  ballot  carrying  the  names  of  from 
50  to  200  candidates,  are  horrified  over  "too  many  questions."  But 
here  is  a  table  which  tells  the  tale  of  the  exact  number  of  questions 
submitted  by  petition  of  the  people  in  every  State  and  in  every 
general  election  since  the  introduction  of  direct  legislation. 

TABLE  No.  3. — Showing  tlie  number  of  initiative  and  referendum  questions  submitted  in 
the  United  States,  1900  to  1916.1 


Adopted. 

State. 

Number  of  measures  voted  on  in  elections  of  — 

Total. 

1934 

1906 

1903 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1914 

1915 

191G 

1898.. 

South  Dakota1  

4 
15 
1 

6 
27 

4 

31 

3 

19 

.... 

5 
8 

»      22 
113 
1 
11 
18 
14 
7 
14 
46 
38 
34 

1902 

Oregon 

2 

11 

1905.       .. 
1906. 
1907.       .. 
1908. 
1908. 
1910. 
1910. 
1911. 
1911. 
1911. 
1912 

Nevada  

Montana         

5 
4 
3 
1 

7 
26 
9 
6 

4 
4 
7 
1 
3 
13 
19 
21 

.   .   .. 

2 
2 
2 
1 
4 
7 
10 
5 

Oklahoma 

1 

7 
2 

Missouri 

Maine 

3 

1 

Arkansas  

Colorado 

Arizona       

California 

2 

New  Mexico  

Ohio 

4 

4 
6 
M 

4 
2 

1912. 
1912. 
1913.   .     . 
1914.   .     . 
1914  
1915  

Nebraska 

4 

2 
9 
3 
2 

Washington...     . 

7 

Michigan 

1 

North  Dakota  

Mississippi 

Maryland     

Total  measures  sub- 
mitted   

"   "  " 

.. 

: 

11 
3 

21 
5 

45 

7 

1 

96 
11 

110 
16 

2 

62 

19 

350 

Total  elections  ini- 
tiative and  refer- 
endum States  

1  None  from  1898  to  1906. 


Total  number  of  State-wide  elections,  1900-1916,  in  which  it  was  possible  to 

submit  measures  by  initiative  and  referendum  petitions 72 

Total  number  of  measures  submitted  by  petition 350 

Average  number  submitted  at  each  election,  4.86,  or  less  than 5 

Number  of  special  elections  called  to  submit  initiative  and  referendum  questions .       1 


Eigliih  objection. — The  people  are  not  intelligent  enough  to  vote 
upon  laws. 

Answer.  The  alleged  ignorance  of  the  people"%as  been  urged  in  all 
ages  against  progress  in  government.  It  was  the  chief  argument 
made  against  the  establishment  of  the  American  Republic.  vSome 
ultraconservative  people  may  honestly  believe  the  people  are.  incom- 
petent, but  the  objection  is  usually  made  by  those  who  fear  the  intel- 
ligence, not  the  ignorance  of  the  people. 

The  judgment  of  a  whole  State,  expressed  at  the  ballot  box,  after 
full  discussion  and  opportunity  for  information,  which  the  State 
should  fi^nish,  is  about  the  safest  guide  in  tho  affairs  of  government 
I  know  of. 

Our  \vlv°lc  system  of  government  assumes  the  capacity  of  the  people 
to  judgr  the  worth  of  legislative  acts.  We  elect  men  upon  the  meas- 
ures they  advocate  or  oppose.  We  reclect  them  or  not  as  we  think 
the  measures  they  have  enacted  good  or  bad.  Is  it  not  absurd  then, 
to  hold  that  the  people  have  brains  enough  to  vote  upon  the  men  but 


STATE-WIDE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 


13 


not  intelligence  enough  to  vote  upon  the  measures  themselves,  printed 
in  black  and  white  ?  I  confess  it  is  a  mystery  to  me  how  some  men 
can  conceive  the  people  to  be  "intelligent  citizens"  just  before  elec- 
tion and  an  "irresponsible  mob"  immediately  after  election.  (Hon. 
George  W.  Norris,  United  States  Senator  from  Nebraska.) 

Dr.  E.  A.  Ross,  professor  of  sociology,  University  of  Wisconsin, 
writes : 

In  1800  the  average  American  adult  had  82  days  of  schooling.  In  1909  this  had 
increased  to  1,046  days. 

In  30  years  the  secondary  schools  of  the  Nation  have  grown  from  1,400  to  12,000. 

During  the  past  18  years  the  proportion  of  youth  receiving  high-school  instruction 
has  doubled,  while  the  enrollment  in  the  public  high  schools  has  more  than  quad- 
rupled. And  college  attendance  has  increased  400  per  cent  while  the  population 
was  gaining  100  per  cent. 

Hon.  Charles  E.  Hughes,  former  associate  justice  of  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  when  governor  of  New  York,  said: 

The  only  thing  you  can  depend  on  in  this  country  is  the  judgment  of  the  people 
after  full  discussion.  (Speech  at  Olean,  N.  Y.,  Sept,  10,  1909.) 


Ninth  objection. — The  people  could  not  and  would  not  discrimi- 
nate— they  would  vote  like  sheep. 

Answer.  The  simple  fact  is,  they  do  not.  In  but  few  instances  have 
they  voted  "everything  down"  or  "everything  up."  Given  a  fair 
chance,  they  show  rare  discretion;  that  is,  where  they  have  an  honest, 
intelligent  ballot,  sample  ballots  to  study  in  advance,  and  the  State 
publicity  pamphlet  system  of  advertising  the  measures.  Again,  let 
election  returns  tell  the  story. 

TABLE  No.  4. — Showing  the  total  number  of  inititive  and  referendum  measures  adopted 
and  rejected  at  elections  in  the  United  States,  1904  to  1916. l 


Number 

of  States 

Elections  of— 

using  the 
initiative 

Adopted. 

Rejected. 

Total. 

and  ref- 

erendum. 

1904 

2 

2 

o 

1906... 

3 

8 

2 

11 

1908  

5 

14 

7 

21 

1910          

7 

10 

35 

45 

1912... 

11 

43 

53 

96 

1914... 

16 

32 

78 

110 

1916                                                r 

19 

23 

29 

62 

1 

2 

Total  

133 

217 

350 

'This  table  docs  not  include  measures  submitted  by  the  State  legislatures. 

Total  numberof  measures  placed  on  ballot  by  petitions  of  the  people. .  350 

Total  number  adopted 133 

Total  number  rejected 217 

This  table  proves  that  the  people  discriminate  and  are  conserva- 
tive and  careful. 

Tenth  objection. — The  system  would  be  too  expensive. 

Answer.  The  most  expensive  government  in  the  world  is  that  man- 
aged by  a  privileged  few.  The  less  democratic  the  more  costly- 
witness  Russia  or  the  frightful  squandering  of  the  public  funds  ia 


14  STATE- WIDE   INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM. 

States  controlled  by  political  machines.  The  referendum  is  the 
greatest  foe  to  extravagance  in  public  affairs  known — witness  the 
results  in  Oregon,  South  Dakota,  Montana,  and  other  States.  Since 
measures  arc  ordinarily  submitted  at  general  elections  the  added  cost 
is  but  slight.  If  the  State  adopts  the  expensive  but  inefficient  system 
of  publishing  pending  measures  in  newspapers,  this  cost  will  be  quite 
heavy,  but  if  they  adopt  the  Oregon,  Arizona,  and  California  plan  of 
sending  a  pamphlet  to  the  voters,  the  expenses  will  be  but  a  few 
thousand  dollars  for  the  entire  State  and  the  education  of  the  voters 
by  this  means  is  worth  a  thousand  times  more  than  it  costs.  (Hon. 
Carl  Schurz  Yrooman,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Agriculture.) 

Eleventh  objection. — How  will  the  people  be  informed  so  as  to 
vote  intelligently  upon  questions? 

Answer.  The  problem  of  educating  voters  upon  questions  submitted 
under  the  initiative  and  referendum  has  been  solved  in  California  by 
having  the  secretary  of  state  send  to  the  voters  through  the  mails  a 

Eamphlct  containing  copies  of  the  proposed  laws,  a  reprint  of  the 
allot  title,  and  also  with  explanatory  arguments  for  and  against  each 
measure.  In  Oregon  the  system  also  includes  the  right  of  citizens  or 
organization  to  present  arguments,  they  paying  the  exact  cost  of  the 
space  taken.  Ihese  pamphlets  arc  read  and  studied  by  an  unex- 
pectedly large  proportion  of  our  citizens  and  who  are  thereby  enabled 
to  vote  intelligently.  I  consider  the  pamphlet  system  of  great  im- 
portance, as  it  is  far  better  and  cheaper  than  newspaper  advertising. 
(Dr.  John  Randolph  Haynes,  father  of  direct  legislation  in  California.) 

Twelfth  objection. — It  is  absurd  to  have  all  the  laws  passed  by  a 
State  legislature  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 

Answer.  The  objection  is  absurd  and  false.  No  legislative  act  ii 
referred  unless  a  petition  is  filed  against  it.  Ah*  others  go  into  effect 
in  the  ordinary  manner.  Of  all  the  thousands  of  laws  passed  by  legis- 
latures in  initiative  and  referendum  States,  a  total  of  only  78  have 
been  referred  by  petition  of  the  people  in  72  elections. 

Thirteenth  objection. — If  we  have  direct  legislation,  the  colored 
people  and  the  foreign  elements  will  control  the  Government. 

Answer.  During  our  campaign  for  the  initiative  and  referendum  in 
Arkansas  in  1910  every  conceivable  argument  calculated  to  frighten 
the  voters  into  rejecting  these  peopled  rule  measures  was  brought 
against  us  by  the  reactionary  few. 

We  were  told  that  ''legalized  anarchy"  would  follow  its  adoption; 
that  there  would  be  a  "French  Revolution;1'  that  we  would  "lapse 
into  barbarism;"  and  as  a  crowning  absurdity  we  were  warned  that 
with  the  initiative  and  referendum  ' '  the  State  would  be  controlled  by 
negroes."  My  answer  to  this  tirade  was,  and  is  now,  that  what  the 
predatory  corporations,  their  lawyers,  and  politicians  feared  was  the 
white  people's  intelligence  and  not  those  negroes  or  foreigners  who 
were  ignorant  and  uneducated.  Also  that  it  was  foolish  to  talk  about 
anarchy  unless  a  majority  of  the  people  were  anarchists,  since  nothing 
could  be  done  to  which  a  majority  of  the  voters  did  not  agree,  and 
that  it  was  an  insult  to  call  the  voters  anarchists.  (Hon.  George  W. 
Donaghey,  former  governor  of  Arkansas.) 


STATE- WIDE  INITIATIVE   AND  REFERENDUM.  15 

Fourteenth  objection. — How  about  the  ignorant  voter? 

Answer.  A  glance  at  Table  No.  2  will  show  that  from  10  to  25 
per  cent  of  the  voters  do  not  vote  on  public  questions  of  moment.  A 
great  majority  of  these  are  men  and  women  too  indifferent,  unin- 
formed, or  ignorant  to  take  an  interest  in  settling  public  policies, 
although  they  will  vote  a  party  ticket  or  for  a  favorite  candidate. 
The  practical  result  is  that,  without  anyone  arbitrarily  invading 
their  rights  of  citizenship,  they  voluntarily  disfranchise  themselves 
in  respect  to  questions  at  issue  by  failing  to  vote.  The  75  to  90  per 
cent  of  the  voters  who  do  vote  on  questions,  constitute  the  interested, 
live,  and  intelligent  citizenship  of  the  State.  It  is  not  the  uneducated 
or  indifferent  10  to  25  per  cent  who  do  not  vote,  but  the  intelligent 
75  to  90  per  cent  who  do  vote  on  questions  that  the  corrupt  alliance 
of  "big  business"  and  corrupt  politicians  fear. 

The  way  to  deal  with  that  class  of  the  " foreign  vote/'  the  " colored 
vote,"  or  the  " native  American"  vote  which  can  be  bought  and 
"  delivered,"  is  to  enact  and  enforce  a  stringent  corrupt-practices  act 
which  will  put  in  the  penitentiary  the  men  who  put  up  the  money  to 
bribe  them.  

THE   DANGER   FROM   JOKERS. 

To  work  successfully,  initiative  and  referendum  amendments  and 
enabling  acts  must  be  drafted  with  great  care.  It  is  better  to  have 
no  system  at  all  than  a  poor  one.  Under  the  guise  of  protecting  the 
initiative  and  referendum  from  abuse  through  so-called  "  safeguards 
and  restrictions,"  "jokers"  are  frequently  slipped  into  these  laws 
which  nullify  their  usefulness.  The  most  common  ones  are  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Restriction"  jokers.  To  deny  the  people  the  right  to  initiate 
and  vote  upon  amendments  to  the  State  constitution,  thus  giving 
them  no  direct  control  over  their  fundamental  law.  To  exclude 
from  the  referendum  appropriation  measures  of  every  kind;  thus  pre- 
venting any  popular  control  of  the  public  purse. 

"Petition"  jokers.  To  require  exceedingly  large  petitions.  The 
North  Dakota  amendment,  adopted  in  1912,  requires  a  petition  for  a 
proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution  to  be  signed  "by  at  least 
25  per  cent  of  the  legal  voters  in  each  of  not  less  than  one-half  of  the 
counties  of  the  State."  The  proposed  Wyoming  amendment  of  1912 
required  25  per  cent  petitions.  Eight  per  cent  for  the  initiative  and 
5  per  cent  for  the  referendum  are  standard  in  the  United  States  and 
are  sufficient. 

To  prohibit  or  make  difficult  the  securing  of  petitions.  In  Washing- 
ton the  legislature  of  1915  passed  an  act  making  it  a  gross  misde- 
meanor to  circulate  an  initiative  and  referendum  petition.  Voters 
were  compelled  to  sign  in  a  registration  offioe  and  before  a  registra- 
tion officer.  This  law  was  held  up  by  referendum  petition  and  at 
the  election  of  1916  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  196,363  to  63,117. 

The  "publicity"  joker.  Extended  experience  shows  that  the  best 
method  of  informing  the  voter  upon  the  merits  of  pending  measures 
is  for  the  State  to  print  and  mail  direct  to  every  voter  an  official 
State  public  pamphlet  containing  copies  of  the  measures  and  permit- 
ting citizens  or  organizations  to  file  arguments  for  or  against  them 
by  paying  the  exact  cost  of  the  space  taken.  The  joker  consists  in 
continuing  the  old  policy  of  publishing  the  pending  measures  in  news- 
papers, one  in  each  county.  Thus  thousands  of  voters  have  no  ade- 


16  STATE- WIDE   INITIATIVE  AND   REFERENDUM. 

quate  opportunity  for  knowing  before  election  what  they  are 
voting  on. 

"Judicial"  jokers.  An  initiative  and  referendum  system  which 
does  not  clearly  specify  court  procedure  is  dangerously  defective. 
For  instance,  if  a  petition  is  attacked  in  court,  a" hostile  judge  may 
place  the  " burden  of  proof"  as  to  its  sufficiency  upon  the  petitioners 
and  require  them  to  show  that  each  one  of  the  thousands  of  signa- 
tures is  genuine,  etc.  Since  this  is  impossible,  many  petitions  have 
been  thrown  out  of  court  on  these  grounds  and  have  never  come  to 
a  vote. 

Or  a  hostile  judge  may  delay  the  decision  as  to  the  sufficiency  or 
purity  of  the  petition  until  after  the  election,  and  the  efforts  of  the 
petitioners  thus  be  brought  to  nothing. 

"Ballot  title"  jokers.  If  no  careful  provisions  are  made  for  the 
preparation  or  court  review  of  ballot  titles,  a  title  may  be  drawn  so 
that  many  voters  will  vote  against  a  measure  when  they  think  they 
are  voting  for  it,  or  vice  versa.  Or  a  ballot  title  may  be  inaccurate 
or  prejudicial,  and  thus  deceive  the  voters. 

The  "majority"  joker.  Measures  are  voted  on  usually  at  general 
elections.  A  varying  per  cent  of  those  who  vote  for  candidates  will 
not  vote  upon  measures.  (See  Table  No.  2.)  Measures  should  be 
adopted  or  rejected  by  a  majority  of  those  voting  upon  them.  The 
joker  consists  in  requiring  such  measures  to  receive  a  majority  of 
"all  votes  cast  in  said  election"  for  candidates.  This  can  seldom  be 
obtained,  as  the  experience  of  all  States  shows.  This  joker  has 
rendered  the  Oklahoma  initiative  practically  useless,  since  many 
important  laws  passed  by  a  large  majority  of  votes  cast  "thereon^ 
failed  to  get  the  constitutional  majority  01  those  cast  in  the  election. 

The  "emergency"  joker.  Sometimes  it  is  necessary  for  tho 
"preservation  of  public  peace,  health,  or  safety"  that  a  legislative 
act  become  operative  instantly  and  not  be  subject  to  possible  sus- 
pension until  a  referendum  vote  be  taken,  or  to  wait  90  days  before 
going  into  effect,  \vhich  is  the  usual  practice.  The  joker  consists  in 
permitting  the  legislature  by  a  majority  vote  to  declare  anything  to 
be  "emergency,"  and  thus  annul  the  possibility  of  a  referendum 
vote.  For  example,  over  45  per  cent  of  the  laws  passed  in  South 
Dakota  for  the  past  10  years  have  been  declared  "emergency."  In 
Oklahoma  60  per  cent  of  the  laws  passed  at  the  special  session  of  1916 
wrerc  declared  "emergency"  and  no  referendum  vote  could  be  had. 

The  remedy  is  to  require  a  two-thirds  roll  call  vote  upon  an 
emergency,  to  state  what  it  is,  and  oven  then  to  permit  a  vote  of  tho 
people  if  asked,  the  law  meanwhile  remaining  in  operation. 

The  "arbitrary  limitation"  joker.  In  Arkansas  only  three  con- 
stitutional amendments  can  be  submitted  in  any  one  election.  If 
the  legislature  submits  three  the  people  are  shut  out.  No  limitation 
is  necessary  or  should  be  tolerated. 

WHERE   TO   GET   INFORMATION. 

The  National  Popular  Government  League,  a  nonpartisan  organiza- 
tion, maintains  a  bureau  of  information  upon  every  phase  of  the 
initiative,  referendum,  recall,  and  other  measures  designed  to  place 
more  political  power  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 

Address  Judson  King,  executive  secretary,  637  the  Munsey  Building, 
Washington,  D,  C. 

o 


